-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 98
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Better retry for base backup restore #631
Better retry for base backup restore #631
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
New mandatory parameter is missing in the tests. Either default it to STALL_MIN_RETRIES
or update the tests.
dcbc4d6
to
0685c9c
Compare
Current implementation use fixed retry (6) for base backup restore. However, on a large (2~4 TiB) database, there are more data to be transferred and will take longer. As a result, it is more likely to hit the limit. This commit allows a dynamic number of retry, depends on the size of the base backup.
0685c9c
to
4869d84
Compare
I have force-pushed to fix However, test failed on While running tests locally |
Test passed, ready for review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
About this change - What it does
Current implementation use fixed retry (6) for base backup restore. However, on a large (2~4 TiB) database, there are more data to be transferred and will take longer. As a result, it is more likely to hit the limit.
This commit allows a dynamic number of retry, depends on the size of the base backup.
Why this way
This seems to be the minimum change to avoid starting over base backup download when restoring a large database. I acknowledge that there are other and/or better ways to implement this.